December 19, 2007

Also in the clip: denying that cross in his Christmas video was meant to be a cross and coming out strongly against Wall Street and those who want the votes of the evangelicals but not to see them in the seat of power.

IN THE COMMENTS: People want me to say he's lying about the cross. Based on what I said about it on Monday, you already know I do, but okay. I'll come right out and say it: I think he's lying about the cross.

59 comments:

Good for Mike. Evangelicals were important enough for the elite Republicans stranglehold on power to pander to with b.s. Federal Marriage Amendments and faux-embracing of Nascar and the like, but when they actually want some real power, now one of there own is treated like some dumb hick. Mike, unlike Bush, is going to show them what a real holy-roller is like.

In any case, we've given those people eight years of fundamentalists and evangelicals -- Bush, Ashcroft, Gonzales, et al -- and they effed it up. It is past time for them to let some grown-ups have the reigns of power for a change.

I am really starting to dislike the cynical use of religion by Huckabee.

"coming out strongly against... those who want the votes of the evangelicals but not to see them in the seat of power."

Who would those be? Republicans who put George W. Bush in the White House, or who supported John Ashcroft through thick and thin? Or Democrats who put Jimmy Carter in the White House and still look up to him as a guiding light?

But then, the whole approach of politicians nowadays is to attach victim status to some group and then make a populist appeal to fighting the powerful on their behalf.

Evangelicals are to the Republican Party as Blacks are to the Democrat Party. The Party's take their votes for granted, but hate it when they actually want a real seat at the deciding table. Bush's current unpopularity among establishment Republican's is due to his not previously understood evangelical leanings.

The National Review, Weekly Standard, and Club for Growth don't want another evangelical running because they seriously believe that too much of the nation has turned blue and is anti-evangelical, if not downright anti-Christian. They might actually be right. But the over-the-top hysteria that is bandied about in Republican circles by formerly respectable people just shows how out of touch the Washington elite have become. The last time they were this incensed was over a guy named Reagan, someone whom the party elite did not "get" even then.

As to the subject of Huckabee's incredible poise in interviews and debates, it's simple: he's real.

He may not win, but in debates with any Dem he will obviously clean their clocks. Imagine a guy walking in without hours of debate prep defeating the foot-in-mouth prone Clinton, Obama and Edwards. There is already the belief in the Dem circles that Huckabee can't win, but there is also discussion and fear among the staffs of the top 3 Dem candidates that they will need to make major personality turns to be able to take on Huckabee in debates should he actually win the nomination.

Huckabee might actually go even further in the debates against the Dem nominee and wipe the floor with their asses. Delicious, and worth real money to see.

Conservative opposition to Mike Huckabee isn't driven by his religious convictions or his rural upbringing; it's driven from his somewhat liberal and "populist" stances that don't square with economic conservatism and national security concerns.

I personally thought that a Republican controlled Congress/Senate would be able to reign Bush in on his "compassionate" big government ideas. As a result, mainstream party conservatives got burned by the party elite. The idea that party opposition comed from considering him a "hick" is a liberal-left projection of their attitudes towards Huckabee more than anything else.

Huckabee is the Republican Jimmy Carter. He may very well be a religious bigot, like Jimmy Carter. No thanks.

The weakest parts of his presentation were (1) his claim that the cross is not a cross but merely a bookshelf, even though it's clearly illuminated and centered as a cross and the presence of a cross fits entirely with the theme of his words (it's utterly impossible to imagine all that happening to a professional videographer entirely by accident), and (2) his effort to defend the 1,033 pardons and commutations he issued as governor.

I've watched the snide asides that have come form the Shultz's Scowcrofts and Powell's for the last 8 years regarding the President's beliefs. Do you honestly believe that the "voting public" has not consistently bandied about remarks of Bush's "wierd" relationship to God.Not one day goes by since even 9/11 that you can't find a fresh remark about Bush and his efforts to establish a Theocracy. Even Charlie Rose for pete's sake!

Pull your head out. If Bush was a womanizer and not tied to the evangelical wing he would be hated for being a Republican, but he would still get more respect from the Party establishment than he does now

"Meant to be a cross" or not, I still have a very hard time believing none of the production crew, etc., noticed that image before the spot hit the airwaves. Truly, that doesn't pass the laugh test.

As I noted in another comments thread, even my 7-year-old, unprompted, noticed that image when he saw that ad on TV here in Iowa.

I don't think the cross being there is "lame," given that it's an ad by Huckabee, and obviously I can't speak to the facts as to whether the image was intentional, but I do think it's a little silly to act as if it's not there or that no one noticed that prior to air release. I mean, who the heck does Huckabee have doing his promotional work? Having a rudimentary "eye" for imagery is sort of a job requirement for spot-making, isn't it?

(Editorial note: I was 1/2 a mass com/broadcasting major, and I later worked at a commercial television station for a year or so, on the marketing/promotion side, which included working on PSAs and promotional spots. So I'm not JUST pulling this out of my ass.)

I hardly have "smeared" him about his religious views. His "casual remark" about Mormonism that he wound up apologizing for is very revealing. Similar to Carters remarks about Jews. He brought it up, I will call him on it.

Funny thing about that article in the NYT - Huckabee and his campaign didn't write it.

I guess I choose to believe even the writer of the article - who IS an expert on Mormonism - when he said that he and Huckabee were discussing Mormonism during a car ride, with Huckabee asking sincere questions. Huckabee thought it was off the record at that point, the writer disputes that it was, but does agree that Huckabee was asking several questions because the writer is well versed in Mormonism, not that Huckabee was trying to implant a statement.

There is no question that Huck's message is filled with classic populist and evangelical rhetoric. He is very skillful at articulating it without sounding like a nut. Bill Clinton also had it down pat. Must be the Arkansas roots. I suspect both of them studied not only Carter, but the first great propounder of that type of message, William Jennings Bryan the "boy orator of the Platte".

John Edwards has a bit of that message in his campaign, but Huck's is probably more effective in midwestern states like Iowa.

What is unusual is that message in the Republican party. Not since Landon and Wilkie have we seen that message from a Republican nominee. I don't think it is likely that we will see it again this year.

"Just as social conservatives earlier this fall threatened (for a couple of weeks) to run a third-party candidate if Giuliani got the nomination, so Washington GOP elites are willing to misrepresent parts of what Huckabee has said and written in a savage effort to destroy any chance he might have of being elected."

"The alleged Huckabee shocker of the week (for the GOP D.C. regulars in journalism and blogland) is his description of President Bush's foreign policy as plagued by an "arrogant bunker mentality." This phrase, according to Romney and his journalistic coat holders, is disloyal to President Bush and is right out of the Democratic talking points.

There is just a touch of insincerity in that charge. During the past year or two, one couldn't have lunch at The Capital Grille (preferred dining spot for big-time D.C. Republican politicians and journalists) or other similar locations without hearing the constant complaint that the Bush White House was arrogant and wouldn't listen to their friends about Iraq or about domestic matters. Until Eddie Gillespie came in as counselor recently (and started reaching out), the word "bunker" was a plausible and often-used word to describe the White House -- even on Iraq policy before the surge this spring."

Bush's current unpopularity among establishment Republican's is due to his not previously understood evangelical leanings

Based on my personal feelings and the feelings of others that I have talked to: The current unpopularity of Bush is due to

1. His amnesty stance on illegal immigration. The push to legalize millions of criminals and jump them up in line above the people who are legally trying to immigrate to the US pissed us all off.

2. His refusal to secure the borders of the US North and South, while at the same time wanking on about terrorism.

3. His support of free trade/open borders and a unified North America which would effectively erase the United States and diminish our sovereignty.

4. The out of control spending in his first term and the first half of his second term. His refusal, until just lately, to veto the pork larded bills coming from both the Republican and Democrat controlled House and Senate. QUIT SPENDING SO MUCH MONEY!!

5. His inexplicable ability to stand up for his policies in Iraq until much too late. Letting the media, the Dems and other countries walk all over him and by default walk all over the US. If he is so sure that he is right about his Iraq policies (which I believe he is), then for God's sake, stand up for yourself. Who wants a President that has is a doormat? If he can't think on his feet, (which seems to be likely many people can't), then hire some effective PR people to get the message out.

Note.... in the above there is nothing about evangelical leanings.

And... Yes.. I think Huckabee is lying about the cross. They thought they could sneak a subliminal message in, but they were hardly subtle enough. Beat us over the head with the religious messages why don't you? Yep... we're all dumber than doorknobs out here...can't figure out what you are doing.

I find it hard to believe that nobody spotted the cross in the ad, but then again, why be coy when you're telling people Christmas is about the birth of Christ?

What I found interesting in the interview was the quick shift from "I was just trying to change the nasty tone of politics and focus on something more spiritual" to "Let's talk about my opponent's bad use of pardons."

I watched the ad for the first time to see what the flying cross was that people were talking about. It didnt hit me until someone mentioned the three ornaments on one of the shelves what the cross was. According to some in here, that makes me a liar. I just don't understand what the gain would be sneaking a cross into what is clearly a religious spot. Maybe if he were talking about immigration or taxes or something, but what would have been the downside to just hang a cross on the tree? What possible reason would there be to sneak it into the spot?

Huckabee's first job, the one he left the seminary for, was working as the PR man for a televangelist. IIRC, he worked in that capacity for 7 years. So, he worked for 7 years in TELEVISION and we're supposed to believe he's so ignorant of visual imagery he didn't notice the cross in his ad? If that's the case, he's too dumb to be President. (And, no, Jeff, this doesn't make you out to be either a liar or dumb. If you were an experienced television pro, failing to see the cross would make you incompetent, not a liar.)

Perhaps, if this were the first time he did something that smacks of playing the religion card, we could all just give him the benefit of the doubt. People do, after all, make mistakes. However, when all of his oops-did-I-say-that moments all break the same way, it becomes just a tad harder to believe these "errors" weren't intentional.

For the last eight years, the rest of the Republican Party has sat back while George Bush sold out everything the Party believes in EXCEPT for (a) the war and (b) evangelical Christian causes like abortion, gay marriage, et al. The reason party insiders are annoyed with Evangelicals isn't religious bigotry. It is that Evangelicals are a bunch of ungrateful schmucks who are unwilling to give anything back to the party that has given THEM so damned much over the last few decades.

When's the last time evangelicals were willing to actually compromise, the way that everyone else who votes Republican has to? Where's the willingness to support a Giuliani or a Romney, the way that economic conservatives held their nose and supported the Christian-conservative but big-government-liberal Bush? I am sick to DEATH of the way evangelicals throw a temper tantrum and abandon the party the very instant they aren't being promised one hundred percent support for one hundred percent of their issues!

He's lying about the cross. You don't take that much time setting up a shot, experiment with getting lighting exactly right, especially the background light, focus etc.,use stand-ins until you get the composition exactly the way you want, practice the pans so that it appears the background moves while the subject doesn't, re-paint the edges of the shelves to improve the reflective quality, practice your timing, and ask, "How does the cross look behind me?" then try to convince us it was all unintended.

When's the last time evangelicals were willing to actually compromise, the way that everyone else who votes Republican has to? Where's the willingness to support a Giuliani or a Romney, the way that economic conservatives held their nose and supported the Christian-conservative but big-government-liberal Bush? I am sick to DEATH of the way evangelicals throw a temper tantrum and abandon the party the very instant they aren't being promised one hundred percent support for one hundred percent of their issues!

I am sick to DEATH of the way evangelicals throw a temper tantrum and abandon the party the very instant they aren't being promised one hundred percent support for one hundred percent of their issues!

So, who here refuses to vote for McCain because of McCain-Feingold or immigration? I would guess more than a few. Everything else he's dandy, but those couple of issues, and he's right out. Some folks might even vote for the other party before they vote for him because of those issues.

It isn't possible to outlaw abortion in the United States today, as any person with a brain knows. What the Republican Party has given evangelicals during the Bush administration is (a) justices who are hostile to Roe vs. Wade and (b) new legal restrictions on abortion. That is the most it was POSSIBLE to give pro-lifers during the last seven years.

So, who here refuses to vote for McCain because of McCain-Feingold or immigration?

Unless Rudy Giuliani is the head of NARAL I don't see how that's an honest example. McCain led the push for McCain-Feingold (duh) and for illegal immigrant amnesty. Rudy Giuliani is not a leader of the gay rights or pro-choice movements. He has promised to the kind of judges needed to overturn Roe vs Wade. He has promised not to do anything to expand abortion, and to do things to restrict it. But that's just not good enough for a lot of the evangelical jackasses, oh no -- anything less than full on frothing-at-the-mouth opposition to anything gay or abortion-related is a deal-breaker. No, they'd rather have some dipshit redneck who's soft on crime, immigration, foreign policy and big government so long as he thumps that Bible hard enough.

"Huckabee gets a big boost among evangelicals if he can convince them that the MSM and liberal elite are against him."

I highly doubt that, as everyone in the world (rightly) assumes that's that case as a starting point. The real trick would be convincing anyone that the MSM wasn't against him.

Rev, what exactly has the "evangelical" wing gotten from the Republican Party, other than a little lip service? And no, I don't think "justices who are hostile to Roe vs. Wade" counts for anything as those same justices are pretty friendly to the rest of the Republican Insider™ POV, aren't they? It's not like Roberts or Alito are particularly business-unfriendly or anything.

Rev, I love ya, especially your commentings, but when I see you write such stuff as That is the most it was POSSIBLE to give pro-lifers during the last seven years., I've got to think that you've been tappin the nog a bit much.

How about if those whining evangelical's left the publican party? Would that feel better?

How many elections in any office would Republicans then win? Let's see, hmmmm . . . how about ZERO?If those whiny evangelicals simply sit on their hands, The Republicans will lose every state.They can't win without us.

Chip Ahoy, your cleverly coded comment didn't fool me one bit. By simply adding up the number of letters in your comment, dividing by the square root of.00068590432, and then convertng that number into the corresponding sequence of Sanskrit symbols, your message is quite clear. No, I positively refuse to take part in your planned "sacred ceremony" in Area 51 to petition Timothy Leary to return to Earth from outer space.

Paddy O on evangelicals tantrums - So, who here refuses to vote for McCain because of McCain-Feingold or immigration? I would guess more than a few. Everything else he's dandy, but those couple of issues, and he's right out. Some folks might even vote for the other party before they vote for him because of those issues. What's the difference besides the chosen causes?

McCain has done it long enough,going from on occasion undercutting Republican Presidents and mounting "3rd way" rebellions against Republican leadership to regular antics - that he lost his Maverick label and became considered a prima donna. And treacherous - untrustworthy once he sees a way to bask in media glow or work up some backroom deal with Ted Kennedy, his "good friend" John Kerry, and other Republican unreliables like Hagle and Lindsay the Weasel Graham to announce some new "compromise solution" for the cameras.

==================What irks me on the Fundies is they demand moderates bow to their wishes then in election contests say that their agreing to do what evangelicals wat isn't enough - because they aren't pure enough. Or don't pass other stupid litmus tests on religious doctrine, love of Israel and Christian Zionism so it will be ready for the Rapture, Jesus being central in their lives, guns, gays, prayer in schools, denouncing Hollywood, etc.

They are against abortion, but there is always the marginally qualified televangelist was against abortion at age 6, so they won't get any votes and Pat Robertson, some southern bible-thumper will, or Pastor Huckleberry or some other figure in the Southern Religious Right. Which is making it difficult for Republican to maintain a big tent if anyone North of the Mason Dixon Line or West of the Mississippi is rejected as "not pure enough".

Even if the candidate is 100% trustworthy and will appoint strict constructionist judges and veto any gay marriage proposal, it doesn't matter to the Fundies if the candidate is not "pure".

The Democrats have the same issue with their Jacobits on the Hard Left that have their own purity and more anti-West than thou tests.

The comments on this thread are too funny. The "Cross" is a window pane. People "feel" it was a cross and a religious symbol etc. but you can't prove it. So, maybe Huckster is lying and maybe he isn't. Its too ambiguous.

How about if those whining evangelical's left the publican party? Would that feel better?

If evangelicals aren't willing to support Republican candidates who are bad on evangelical issues, B, then they aren't IN the Republican Party in any meaningful sense of the term. They're just a group Republican politicians whore themselves out to for votes every two to six years.

How many elections in any office would Republicans then win? Let's see, hmmmm . . . how about ZERO?

Zero? Unlikely.

First of all you need to keep in mind that, just as most blacks absolutely refuse to consider voting for Republicans because of their embrace of racist whites in the 1960s, there are plenty of middle and upper-class voters, especially women, who absolutely refuse to vote Republican because of the party's embrace of Robertson, Falwell, and the rest of the morally repugnant evangelical Right. Heck, I used to be one of them myself.

Secondly, what exactly does "leave the party" mean? Never vote for Republicans again? Well smooth move, guys, that guarantees that a right to abortion will be amended into the Constitution, gay marriage will be legally recognized coast to coast, and the welfare system will go back to paying women to have children out of wedlock. The Republican Party will survive -- a two-party system is inevitable under our Constitution. The survival of the anti-abortion and anti-gay movements is much less guaranteed.

Or does it mean that they'll still vote for candidates who support their issues, but not for ones who don't? Well, they ALREADY do that, so THREATENING to do that carries zero weight.

Finally -- ok, so you're unimpressed with the new limitations on abortion. You're unimpressed with the new crackdowns on porn and indecency. Roberts and Alito? Unimpressed with them too. But you still have to admit that those things represent benefits to the evangelicals. Economic and small-government conservatives, on the other hand, have spent the last seven years getting f***ed in the ass by the Bush Administration. If Rudy Giuliani planned to personally open up a series of government-run abortion clinics for teenage girls, surrounded by armed guards to keep the parents of those girls from stopping them, and to withhold federal highway funds from any state which did not legalize gay marriage, he would ALMOST be as bad on evangelical issues as Bush has been on economic and small-government issues.

As far as I can tell, it's mostly secular liberals swooning over Huckabee. Liberals adore Huckabee because he fits their image of what an evangelical should be: stupid and easily led...It's one thing to be "easily led" by the pope. Huckabee is easily led by Larry King.

I told you about the news's soap opera women! It's not what real people are thinking.